Recent Court Rulings

RSS

Facts: Two days after being refused entry into a resident’s unit, a site manager mailed the resident a letter informing him that his refusal to consent to entry for inspection and repairs violated his lease. The resident replied with a letter suggesting that actual ownership of the building was in doubt because of fraud relating to its purchase.

The manager then wrote and hand-delivered a letter informing the resident that his lease was terminated and that he had until March 31 to vacate the unit under the lease’s 60-day notice provision.

Facts: A Section 8 resident suspected that new site management was responsible for a decline in the maintenance of the units. He openly complained about the condition of the units to the management, other residents, and eventually the local PHA.

Facts: In 2009 and 2010, a PHA discovered that a Section 8 resident had earned income from sources she hadn’t disclosed and investigated whether she had reported all of her income as required. In 2010, the PHA received a report that an unauthorized person was living with the resident and investigated that allegation. In April 2010, a PHA employee met with the resident to discuss her compliance with program rules. Soon after, the PHA issued a notice to the resident questioning her continued eligibility for the Section 8 program and offering her an informal hearing.

Facts: A resident with mental illness failed to pay at least some portion her January 2014 rent within the time required under her lease. Due to her late rent payment, the owner initiated eviction proceedings against her in state court and secured a judgment against her on April 2, 2014.

Facts: An owner sued to evict a Section 8 resident who had continued as a month-to-month resident with an expired housing assistance payment contract. The owner claimed that occupancy was terminated after it sent a statutory 30-day notice of termination that expired on June 30, 2014. 

Facts: An owner sought to evict a Section 8 resident’s daughter from the unit after the resident passed away. According to the site managers’ testimonies, the resident had been given a two-bedroom handicap-accessible unit because of her age and disabilities as well as the fact that she also required a 24-hour attendant to assist her.

Facts: In 1999, a PHA launched a 10-year plan to update its housing. In 2000, HUD gave the PHA conditional approval for a prescribed period of five years during which time the PHA was to take certain actions to ensure it could adequately meet the needs of the disabled. The PHA planned its overall renovations to meet the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by constructing a percentage of its units to accommodate mobility-impaired individuals and a percentage of units to be accessible to individuals with sensory impairments.

Facts: An owner filed to evict a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) resident for failure to pay rent. The resident then filed a third-party complaint against the PHA for allegedly unlawfully terminating her HCV benefits.

Facts: In December 2013, several households filed a class action complaint seeking injunctive relief against the local PHA for failing to abate mold and excessive moisture in their units. In February 2014, the court certified a settlement class of current and future residents of the PHA who have asthma that substantially limits a major life activity and who have mold and/or excessive moisture in their housing. Instead of contesting the allegations, the PHA elected to settle and in April 2014 entered into a consent decree.

Facts: Several residents sued a PHA for discrimination and asked the court to certify them as a group. The residents claimed that, on March 1, 2013, the PHA made major changes to its administration of the Section 8 program as a result of federal budget cuts. These changes included revisions to the subsidy standards.